Talk:Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The article is reasonably well written, but I find the tone is a little un-encyclopaedic, and promotional in tone throughout, in places and the section on Married life verges on WP:fancruft, can it be toned down?

Removed that section completely. After reading it, I didn't see any encyclopedic value in having it at all. It's amazing how your opinion changes after stepping away for two months and then reading it again. Everything else is in the article is related to their career progression. That section is not so I took it out. Also removed a couple other quotes/sentences that I didn't feel would bring down the quality of the article if taken out. Removal helped to change the tone.
b (MoS):
The EL links to Facebook and MySpace do not conform with WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, section 10 and should be removed. The lead should be expanded to fully summarise the artcile as per WP:MOS

I disagree. The MySpace and Facebook links serve as their official websites and do not violate any policy. Read WP:ELOFFICIAL, particularly the first paragraph, and WP:ELYES.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
Some references do not support facts, e.g. those tagged dead-links and failed verification.

I don't understand how ref 5, 6, 20, 25, 36, and 41 are dubious. What is said in the article is backed up by what is stated/shown in those videos, most of which are interviews. Furthermore, there's other references provided that back up the ones you tagged as dubious. For example, you tagged refs 5 and 6 but refs 1, 2, and 3 support what's stated by 5 and 6 and all six of them are citations for the same sentence. Also, I pulled a direct quote from ref 43. How is this dubious? If I didn't cite it, it would be a copyright violation. Ref 30 is a link to a website that uses Adobe Flash. You can only link to the homepage on flash sites rather than provide direct link to the specific webpage. This is why the specific webpage is annotated in the citation. Click on the "Directors" tab and then click on "Choreographers" tab and you will see their names listed as faculty. Fixed/removed the two dead links.
b (citations to reliable sources):
There are a number of dead links, dubious sources and sources that failed verification. I have tagged them. Please address. Please read up WP:RS to understand what are and are not reliable sources.

Same response as above. However, I did removed the sentences about Nappytabs being endorsed by Beat Freaks. The T-Pain citation I gave has been moved/deleted/redirected from its original location at Vibe.com so I removed that sentence as well. I do not think it was appropriate to tag those six references as dubious. Policy states that the dubious template "...is for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability." Prior to your review, there was no ongoing dispute and the references tagged, most of which are videos, back up what's stated in the article and do not violate WP:SPS, WP:OR, or WP:COS. One of them was actually produced by FOX. I pulled a direct quote from another one.
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
little independent review/criticism of the subject, mostly promotional cruft

Article covers their early life, choreography, teaching jobs, artistic direction, and side projects. I feel like this is broad. I disagree that it has had little review/criticism. It has been peer reviewed and copyedited. Even Copyeditor who felt it had a magazine like tone said it was well rounded. Promotional tone addressed after reading 1a, made changes.
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
as per above

Same response as above.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
File:Tabitha Dumo.jpg is a copyright violation

...No, it's not. This image has a creative commons attribution share alike license. It is tagged as such and has been verified by a bot on Wikimedia Commons. The same flickr user (watchwithkristin) took this photo of Mia Michaels. Professional photographers use flickr too.
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am failing this immediately as the article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, poorly referenced and the sole image is a copyright violation. The nominator has indicated on the talk page that they are away until February 2010, so I believe that it is appropriate to fail this now. It can be renominated when issues are addressed at a later date. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would have placed this article "on hold" as requested. The tone in article has been changed and the sole photo has a cc-by-sa-2.0 license. Fixed the dead links and removed tags from the others. Don't agree with your decision to fail and not reassess but will renominate at WP:GAN. // Gbern3 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]